RSS
More Feeds












God's Politics

A Pre-Emptive Peace Prize?

by Gareth Higgins 10-20-2009

I know it’s been a week and a bit, which in the contemporary mode suggests that ancient history has already passed under the bridge since the Nobel Committee announced its decision, but I wanted to comment about Obama’s prize.  I think it’s telling that half the country is outraged that their president is well thought of by the outside world; and there’s a lot of obvious projection going on, both from those who miss their fallen emperor — you, know, the guy who invited people who wanted to kill us to ‘bring it on’ — and from those who think his successor is their ideal version of what a man should be.

Now, for me, President Obama is a pretty representative approximation of what kind of good man could possibly be elected to the presidency. He seems to have made it there with his soul intact, and you have to empathise with him when he is targeted at the hands of the astonishing double-mindedness of his opponents, whose complaints seem to be as follows: He hasn’t saved the world in his first ten months in office, he hasn’t ended the wrong-headed war his predecessor started eight years ago, he hasn’t disavowed his blackness (which some people appear to want him to do), he’s too smart, etc.

I’ve met a few Nobel Laureates over the years — being on the fringes of the northern Ireland peace process meant that you tended to bump into them from time to time.  Between my alma mater and home city, we produced four of them in just over two decades — Mairead Corrigan Maguire, Betty Williams, David Trimble, and John Hume.  Very few people would dispute that each of them deserved to be so rewarded.  Mairead and Betty co-founded the Peace People with the journalist Ciaran McKeown, a truly grass roots mass movement that transformed the streets of Belfast in the mid-1970s into space for non-violent public protest against the use of violence.  People mobilised in tens of thousands to make their voices heard, and gathered in a movement sparked off by the killing of three of Mairead’s sister’s children.  When they were awarded the Nobel, they had not brought peace to the streets of my home town.  But they had served as a focal point for people’s hope.  Precedents had been set.  And although the Peace People movement came under enormous pressure, and was not helped by either local political parties or the British state, it still works in a grass roots way today.

Two decades later, political negotiators drew up a treaty that offered a structure for relationships in northern Ireland that could be used instead of violence.  Hume and Trimble, the two avatars of northern Irish Protestant unionism and Catholic nationalism, were recognised by the Nobel committee; their political opponents used this as an opportunity to rant then as well.  That was eleven years ago.  Both Hume and Trimble have left the northern Irish political stage, and people who hated either or both of them are now in charge of the government built on the agreement they championed.

But — and this really is the heart of why I think the Nobel Committee got it (mostly) right — the totem for the northern Ireland peace process is not the fact that we now have a broadly stable government, that violence has all but disappeared (with awful, but thankfully rare exceptions), that all the major paramilitary organisations have decommissioned their weapons, or begun the process of doing so, that the police are more accountable than ever and have an enviable (albeit imperfect) record on human rights, and that the opportunity to deal with the past without vengeance exists, even though all these things are true.  No, the totem for the northern Ireland peace process is that, after decades of using violence or belligerence as a political first resort, people decided that negotiation was not a sign of weakness.  Four years of talking got us an agreement.  Nine years of still talking got the agreement implemented.  In the past, there were years when people were killed for political reasons in northern Ireland every single day.  Since 1994, when we started talking, the death toll has reduced to a tragic handful each year.  It is undeniable: a vast number of people are alive today because sworn violent enemies talked to each other.

And this is why President Obama may deserve the Nobel Peace Prize.  Because he is willing to talk first.  Now, he has been saddled with a legacy of war and presides over a nation which has grown too fond of a ’shoot first’ attitude.  He cannot easily extricate himself from business as usual.  But I agree that the Nobel Committee gave him the award because they want to help him.  Complaining that he doesn’t deserve it is both sour grapes, and a misunderstanding of why the Prize is given. Sometimes you get it because you’ve done something amazing (Mandela, Mother Teresa, Wangari Maathai, Jose Ramos-Horta); sometimes you get it because you maybe did something that could have been amazing and might have covered a multitude of sins (Henry Kissinger); and sometimes you get it because the Norwegians think you might be something some day.   I think President Obama already is something — just take today, for instance.  His representatives are talking to Iranian diplomats about diverting their uranium to another country for processing.  His predecessor appeared more willing to drop bombs on Iranians than to talk to them; it may only have been the U.S. election cycle that prevented another insane war in the Middle East.  Obama’s presidency, on the other hand, is offering a teachable moment to us all; we might learn that scapegoating our leaders ends up delivering only more violence.  Alternatively, we might give them a chance to take the high road, and to avoid the mistakes of history by doing what we deeply know, but often deny, to be true: talking is better than fighting.  Doing that might mean that we deserve a peace prize one day too.

*Caveat: Because I know some folk might want to take issue with me, let me say this:

1: I don’t think Obama is perfect.  He is not the Messiah.  He is not the Antichrist either.  Neither is George W. Bush.

2: There are plenty of areas where I think he is either moving too slowly, or has given no indication that he is going to change some of the wrong directions set by the Bush administration.

3: Obama is not responsible for my choices or behaviour.  I hope we can agree to disagree about whether or not he deserves the Peace Prize.  But I hope we will not disagree that we both have a responsibility to reduce violence wherever we are, including when we’re having a conversation on a blog.

Gareth HigginsGareth Higgins is a writer and broadcaster from Belfast, Northern Ireland, who has worked as an academic and activist. He is the author of the insightful How Movies Helped Save My Soul: Finding Spiritual Fingerprints in Culturally Significant Films. He blogs at www.godisnotelsewhere.wordpress.com and co-presents “The Film Talk” podcast with Jett Loe at www.thefilmtalk.com.

Share or bookmark this post:
  • email
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Mixx
  • NewsVine
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks
advertisement


Comment Code of Conduct

I will express myself with civility, courtesy, and respect for every member of the Sojourners online community, especially toward those with whom I disagree—even if I feel disrespected by them. (Romans 12:17-21)

I will express my disagreements with other community members' ideas without insulting, mocking, or slandering them personally. (Matthew 5:22)

I will not exaggerate others' beliefs nor make unfounded prejudicial assumptions based on labels, categories, or stereotypes. I will always extend the benefit of the doubt. (Ephesians 4:29)

I will hold others accountable by clicking "report" on comments that violate these principles, based not on what ideas are expressed but on how they're expressed. (2 Thessalonians 3:13-15)

I understand that comments reported as abusive are reviewed by Sojourners staff and are subject to removal. Repeat offenders will be blocked from making further comments. (Proverbs 18:7)

  • FrancisMonica
    I cannot understand why the president would receive a PEACE price! Peace is an absence of dissension, VIOLENCE, or war.

    As a Senator the only claim to fame he has is the promotion of abortion, for any reason, at any stage of pregnancy and he worked diligently to defeat the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. He is pro-active in promoting VIOLENCE (not peace) towards the unborn and newly born human being.

    Since becoming the president, the only tangible things he has done is to overturn the Mexico City Policy making it possible for United States tax dollars to be used for abortion (VIOLENCE)and appointing Ms Sotomayor Supreme Court justice. It remains to be seen what effect Justice Sotomayor's appointment will have on the court but there was much DISSENSION from both sides of the aisle that went along with that appointment. Not to mention the president's WAR on Mr Limbaugh and Fox News! (http://www.usnews.com/blogs/doug-heye/2009/10/2...) It's childish to say the least!

    He made promises of peace to his constituents during his campaign, from the withdrawal of troops in Iraq to the closing of Guantanamo, etc, http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/46957 and all he has done on that front is to take our troops who were in Iraq and redeploy them to Afghanistan. He has not made any meaningful changes to President Bush's withdrawal plan for Iraq and of course Guantanamo remains open, which in my opinion, it should be.

    Where is he in the business of promoting peace? It's a ridiculous notion that the president deserves a PEACE prize.
  • kansasmennonite
    Jesus of the new testament for one!
  • ando
    To whom shall I bow down in worship?
  • scat
    If it's the "liberal party line" to describe how warring factions have finally made some progress towards peace by talking more and shooting less, then a lot of us will be very proud to wear an L on our forehead. It seems very peculiar to me that people on a Christian blog would so ferociously try to tear down that concept.
    Ando, if you expect Sojourner's to promote a "shoot first, ask later" political solution, you have a long wait.
  • Eh, more like what party politics is all about. I wonder if that's what Washington saw coming of it... But I'm not offended by the caveat because "some folk" have shown themselves prone to that. Mind you, I haven't seen any here yet. (I use my own disclaimers, on other sites, that could be interpreted that way.)

    This comment system is way better than getting fed a broadcast, though.
  • ando
    'I think it's telling that Gareth Higgins conflates the Nobel Prize Committee with "the outside world."

    You mean it's not?! I thought the Committee spoke on behalf of the poor in Africa, Latin America and Asia. Of course, being the bleeding hearts they are, they know what's best for the rest of the world, and know what'll happen even before it happens! In fact, they're modern day prophets!
  • ando
    I challenge Sojourners to once, just ONCE, provide a different perspective than the liberal party line. Otherwise, it's nothing more than Fox News from the opposite angle.

    The caveat that Higgins writes at the end is what it is: total condescension towards anyone who disagrees. Which is what liberalism is all about>
  • You prove Gareth's point succinctly. For openers, I challenge you to name one American conservative that has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.
  • jesse3
    "I think it’s telling that half the country is outraged that their president is well thought of by the outside world"
    --Very few are outraged that Obama got the Nobel prize. If anything, the response from conservatives has been laughter and well-deserved mockery of the selection committee (which has been criticized by liberals and conservatives alike, mind you). But I guess it makes your side look better if you malign your opponents this way.

    "his opponents, whose complaints seem to be as follows: He hasn’t saved the world in his first ten months in office, he hasn’t ended the wrong-headed war his predecessor started eight years ago, he hasn’t disavowed his blackness (which some people appear to want him to do), he’s too smart, etc."
    --I challenge you to come up with any complaint from critics that even comes close to resembling those listed here.

    Gareth, here you're coming across as petty and childish. You speak against 'scapegoating' and for the need to speak with civility, yet this column is just normal, scapegoating, name-calling politics as usual. You can do better.
  • Nathan Bedford
    On 9/12/2001, the whole world stood with us in the outrage of the unprovoked attacks the day before.
    As difficult as it is to envision, George W. Bush is responsible for screwing that up. In my opinion, the award was based primarily on the fact that Obama is not Bush. It is a blank check (to borrow the words from MLK), and the world is praying that he will not squander it the way that his predecessor squandered the good will in the immediate aftermath of 9-11.
  • Lord_Voldemort
    "I think it’s telling that half the country is outraged that their president is well thought of by the outside world."

    I think it's telling that Gareth Higgins conflates the Nobel Prize Committee with "the outside world."

    LV
blog comments powered by Disqus
click here for comments tech support
advertise here
  • MOST VIEWED
  • MOST COMMENTED
  • MOST RECENT
advertise here
advertise here
advertise here
advertise here


HOME | SUBSCRIBE | DONATE | TAKE ACTION | MAGAZINE  
SOJOMAIL | BLOGS | MEDIA | EVENTS | RESOURCES | ABOUT US  
Sojourners | 3333 14th Street NW, Suite 200 | Washington, DC 20010  
Phone 202.328.8842 | Fax 202.328.8757 | sojourners@sojo.net  
Unless otherwise noted, all material © Sojourners 2008